Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    May 19, 2011 1:30pm-2:00pm PDT

1:30 pm
1:31 pm
1:32 pm
1:33 pm
1:34 pm
1:35 pm
1:36 pm
1:37 pm
>> the planning commission is back in session. a reminder to tune your cell phones off. we will now go back to commissioner questions and matters. commissioner antonini: i have had a few meetings in the last week with the individuals about various projects coming up. one is that 899 valencia.
1:38 pm
i believe that is on our calendar for next week. along with some modifications to laguna. along with meetings of 4436 pleasant along with neighbors at 1945 hyde. thank you. vice-president miguel: although i was out last week what they like illness, i did watch the commission entirely on tv. i have also had meetings regarding cpfc and chase bank. i am sure all of the commissioners of the lead article in the paper regarding
1:39 pm
walgreens. i refer to them as a grocery store, not a retail pharmacy. if icy any official papers i come in for walgreens or cvs as a retail pharmacy, i would be tempted to throw them out as inaccurate. >> we have a large event happening in san francisco next week called powow. it does not have anything to do with planning, but it does with the future of san francisco. this brings buyers into san francisco. they are bragging wholesale buying into the united states. it should be good for the city. everybody who represents san francisco will have an opportunity to be a host
1:40 pm
member. commissioner sugaya: to follow- up, powell street and sutter walgreens is in the process of restocking and read shelving the back of the store to have food items. >> even sushi? commissioner sugaya: i did not see that yesterday. >> i was going to ask if the city can look into what we can do with that situation. we have seen that a lot with formula retailers from 7-11, retailers going into certain neighborhoods that have a certain number of mom and pop stores or family own groceries.
1:41 pm
there is a concern that the impact could be great on those kinds of businesses. i was wondering, is it something that we could prohibit from happening? or limit the square footage of certain kinds of food or products? it was raised before. i think we should calendar it. we will calendar it for july 7. >> the question and support of what she was suggesting is as to whether or not the formula retailed needs to redefine or tied up. i do believe that the policy
1:42 pm
involved, while it is forward- looking policy in protection of the city being small-scale retail, which needs specific protection. you could make that the scene of our special meeting. i think that would be fantastic. >> we have a short staff memo. it does not have to be calendared. a recent court case. my understanding is that the environmental report needs to be redone if they move forward with their current plans. the other part of the decision seems to invalidate that use. the commercial district 1/4 of a mile to that site wasn't
1:43 pm
supported by the court. if we could get an interpretation of that, that would be great. >> hand in hand is the question of whether the interior of that facility is an acceptable preservation or whether it is completely untouched? the preservation commission at the time when this project was founded, to look at that. this is the time to look at all issues. >> ok, thank you commissioners'. if we could move for to director's report and announcements. >> thank-you, commissioners. a couple of announcements.
1:44 pm
i wanted to make mention of an upcoming meeting on the market street project. this is a project that will look at the design of market street itself. the department of public works is managing that with the assistance of the transportation authority and the mta. we are in the face of gathering public comment. this is tuesday the 24th next week. we are all welcome to come. this will move into concept alternatives next year. i just wanted to give you a piece of news regarding our new web site offering the property confirmation map that was just unveiled less than a month ago. staff gave me statistics on the number of hits.
1:45 pm
it is getting an unbelievable amount of views. we are getting 27,000 hits a day on the web site. there is a lot of interest. hopefully, it is providing a service to the public. 24,000 hits a day is a staggering number. i never would have imagined that large of a number of hits on the webb said. i think that is it for me. vice-president miguel: if i may chime in on something be director mentioned regarding the market street meeting, lee has asked me to chair a citizens group regarding the design. it will consider the economics of market street to a pedestrian realm at an overall concept.
1:46 pm
as much of an overall participation as we can get would be greatly appreciated. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am here to give you a weekly report on the board of supervisors. there are a couple of items i want to share with you. the first are couple of ordinances related to the merced project. and there should be some technical amendments to the ordinance. there should be a discussion of the hearing after taking public comment period after documents, the hearing was continued without action. the committee will consider action at a special land use hearing schedule for 9:00 this upcoming tuesday. a full board hearing on tuesday. the board will not only consider the eir appeal, but if that is
1:47 pm
upheld, they will consider all of the draft ordinances. the other thing coming up was the housing element. the draft housing element for this item had already heard the appeal of the eir and upheld the ceqa document 8-3. that allowed the committee to take action on the draft housing element. after taking public comment, the committee staff and the commission for the work. then the committee expressed thanks for the housing element and voted unanimously to 40 recommended adoption of the element. that is also scheduled tentatively for next tuesday. there are a couple of new pieces of legislation i would like to let you know. in fact, there are two pieces specifically for 800 presidio.
1:48 pm
on april 28, you heard a proposal for the property washington community center. you took action approving the project. this was all within a 55-foot height limit. since you took action, two new pieces of legislation have been introduced to the board. the first was introduced by supervisor farrell. it reduces the height limit to 45 feet. the second was introduced by supervisors at mirkarimi, mar, and avalos. this would allow a 55-foot height limit. since you have already considered the project and these topics, the board has tentatively calendared both of these. these will not be heard at hearing.
1:49 pm
the board has it on their draft calendar to be considered after june 6 hearing before the land use committee. lastly, there was a hearing request on article 36. this is the inter-agency planned progress report. i received a report a few weeks ago from our staff. that concludes the board report unless there are any questions. thank you. >> commissioners, department's staff. i am the acting administrator for today and tomorrow. i have a very brief report from the board of appeals hearing last night. there was one case being heard at 926 howard.
1:50 pm
the appeal was denied. this was an appeal from interstate media and the department's permit was upheld. >> commissioners, historic preservation committee did meet yesterday. there are three items i would like to bring to your attention. one is proposals for the -- the commission approved that with some modifications, they would allow the approval of this if the project has less than 20% of this project that requires this. in the department in a five-year period. the administrative c of a's have to come back to the commission with a year -- within a year.
1:51 pm
we also had a historic resource survey. there was some discussion. they did not take action. they continued the item to the next meeting on june 1. there was hearing on the nominating a library to be a national registry of historic places. the commission just passed a motion that they are informing them that they cannot reach consensus either way. on the nomination. they could not decide to nominate it or not, so they went forward without their support. that concludes my report. >> commissioners, with that, we can move onto general public, and for 15 minutes.
1:52 pm
at the general public may address you on comment -- on issues. agenda items may only be addressed during their part on the calendar and not during this time. the public may address you for up to three minutes. keep in mind that the entire category has a 15-minute time limit. >> is there any public comment? seeing none, general public comment is closed. >> now you are at public comment on agenda items where the hearing has been closed. members of the public who wish to address you on an agenda item in which members of the public were allowed to testify, they have the opportunity to do so with the active time. that is only related to item seven on your calendar. each member of the public may address you for up to three minutes. >> is there any public comment on this agenda item?
1:53 pm
seeing none, public comment is close. >> commissioners, the public hearing is closed for this category. item seven, case 2010. this is that 259 broad street. on may 5, 2011, following public testimony we passed a motion of intent to disclose a three-two. the vot for that continuance was 6-1 with commissioner sugaya of voting against. >> good afternoon, commissioners. michael smith, planning department. you out before you 259 broad street. you voted on this may 5. the motion is for disapproval minus zero.
1:54 pm
i prepared that motion for disapproval with a memo. vice-president miguel: i move to disapprove the conditional use application. >> second. >> commissioners, the motion of the floor is the conditional use application. >> aye. commissioner moore: aye. president olague: aye. >> thank you commissioners, that vote was unanimous. you are now on item eight. >> case number2,011.0063. commissioners, as you consider the discretionary review request we will be doing this.
1:55 pm
>> good evening, commissioners. before you is case 201 1.0063d. the proposal is to legalize horizontal additions for a single-family residence that was built without a permit. the rear portion of the east side and along the garage at the front of the single-family residence. this requires a variance in order to legalize. the site is located across the street from the sea cliff area right before the entrance to the presidio where this ends and
1:56 pm
lincoln boulevard begins. on december 11, 1995, there was a sinkhole that damage this property, severely damaged this property and destroy the adjacent property. this photograph shows a portion of the building that was destroyed and damage. between 1995-1998, there were permit applications that were submitted and performed to underpin and support the foundation of the property. on march 23, 1998, a building permit application was approved to restore this back to the original configuration with a one story addition above the garage.
1:57 pm
in 2004, 2005, and 2008, the owners for issued renewal permits, but have since expired. on june 24, 2008, the first complaint was filed at the department of building and inspection. since then, a total of 10 complaints have been filed against the subject property. on july 3, 2008, the complaint was filed with the planning department. on july 10, 2008, the department of building inspection filed the first notice for building enlargement. on july 18, 2008, the department of building inspection issued a second notice of violation about the third level above the garae without permit.
1:58 pm
the owners filed permit applications to correct these files. that is when i first got involved in september, 2008. on february 6 of 2009, the department of building inspection issued a third and final notice of building violation. this was wider than the 1998 permit. in march, 2009, the owners filed two separate permits to correct that. on may 27, 2009, the planning department held its first three meetings for the residential design team to discuss the proposed plan and actions to correct those. during that year, we had several meetings with the owners. finally, at the request of the department on january 7, 2010,
1:59 pm
the owners filed a single building permit application that encompassed all of the building that was being compose on january 7 and withdrew all of the previous permits just for clarity's sake. june 17, 2010, we held a second design team meeting and issued our recommendations to the owners of the property. in september, 2010, they filed a rear yard application. on january 25, two dr >> excuse me, to the west. march 23, 2011, the d.r. applicants to the east withdrew their application and the -- on april 21 d.r.